Digestion begins before you swallow. I expect if I chewed up some salad, opened my mouth and aimed it at the sun, some percentage of what I’d just chewed on would have access to co2, h2o and 600nm EMR, and synthesize a glucose molecule two.
Since the genesis of this conversation was purely semantic (“why is eating a chrolorplast theft if eating anything else isn’t?”) I think it’s pretty fair game to point out that yes, technically I also can reap the benefits of photosynthesis in a very limited way for something im actively digesting.
Not really a point in getting into a semantic argument if you’re just gonna come out swinging about being anti-science.
To put it simply, that slug basically absorb and keep the chloroplast in their own body and let it continue to photosynthesis, hence stealing the ability of the plant they feed, while in your example we basically digest it whole, leaving none of the chloroplast cell to photosynthesis.
That’s a huge difference between this two organism, kinda silly to bring it up as an example, no? And technically, it’s still the salad that does the photosynthesis in your example. You do know what’s up, so not anti-science but trolling? Sealioning? Idk. But overall silly.
You’re the one who invented a definition of “theft” that for reasons beyond my understanding consider the consuming organisms specific mechanism of utilization that also specifically considers if the organism has the ability to synthesize the structures independent of consumption and now also demands that the process be sustainable for an arbitrary (but not indefinite) amount of time AND the structures must meet an arbitrary bar of complexity (which you’ve proclaimed unilaterally is greater than fat) etc etc etc
I’m going to drive directly to my point now that hopefully you can see how your ever-expanding definition of “stealing” (which I promise you, I’m not even getting STARTED on pushing issues that would force you to continually expand) is just bad.
Counter Definition:
Eating isn’t theft. The degree to which ingested materials must be broken down to be useful is interesting, but none of it is stealing. The article used a word that while amusing to read isn’t technically accurate.
It’s truly a gift to see my original comment, which boils down to “huh, odd choice of words,” defended with such eloquence. The internet may not be paradise but I ask you, where else could this meeting of the minds have occurred?
Can you photosynthesis afterward?
Can we learn how to steal the chloroplastic piracy of the algea?
I imagine there is an incredibly short window in which I technically can.
Can’t tell if joking or anti-science, but ok.
Digestion begins before you swallow. I expect if I chewed up some salad, opened my mouth and aimed it at the sun, some percentage of what I’d just chewed on would have access to co2, h2o and 600nm EMR, and synthesize a glucose molecule two.
Since the genesis of this conversation was purely semantic (“why is eating a chrolorplast theft if eating anything else isn’t?”) I think it’s pretty fair game to point out that yes, technically I also can reap the benefits of photosynthesis in a very limited way for something im actively digesting.
Not really a point in getting into a semantic argument if you’re just gonna come out swinging about being anti-science.
To put it simply, that slug basically absorb and keep the chloroplast in their own body and let it continue to photosynthesis, hence stealing the ability of the plant they feed, while in your example we basically digest it whole, leaving none of the chloroplast cell to photosynthesis.
That’s a huge difference between this two organism, kinda silly to bring it up as an example, no? And technically, it’s still the salad that does the photosynthesis in your example. You do know what’s up, so not anti-science but trolling? Sealioning? Idk. But overall silly.
You’re the one who invented a definition of “theft” that for reasons beyond my understanding consider the consuming organisms specific mechanism of utilization that also specifically considers if the organism has the ability to synthesize the structures independent of consumption and now also demands that the process be sustainable for an arbitrary (but not indefinite) amount of time AND the structures must meet an arbitrary bar of complexity (which you’ve proclaimed unilaterally is greater than fat) etc etc etc
I’m going to drive directly to my point now that hopefully you can see how your ever-expanding definition of “stealing” (which I promise you, I’m not even getting STARTED on pushing issues that would force you to continually expand) is just bad.
Counter Definition: Eating isn’t theft. The degree to which ingested materials must be broken down to be useful is interesting, but none of it is stealing. The article used a word that while amusing to read isn’t technically accurate.
It’s truly a gift to see my original comment, which boils down to “huh, odd choice of words,” defended with such eloquence. The internet may not be paradise but I ask you, where else could this meeting of the minds have occurred?